I have a couple of friends who follow the “whatever does my job more easily” principle when it comes to choosing their computer systems. Obviously, for them Windows wins hands down when it comes to operating systems. After all, it works with nearly every piece of hardware that was ever created, be it old or new, and nearly every software that is ever needed to do anything in business or personal life is available for Windows. So they find my passion for Linux and free software quite amusing and even pointless, to say the least.
Their main premise is based on this argument more or less: computers are tools just like any other, and you should pick one that does your job most easily rather than worrying about how good/bad the system is for its own sake or whether it’s open source or proprietary software. That’s where I disagree with them.
My reasons for disagreeing with them are three-fold: one, I don’t think computers are just tools to do a certain set of tasks. Granted I’m a nerd at heart and I’ll always love computers more than the average Joe does. However, it’s about time people realized that computers aren’t just a tool. Even if you insist on referring to them as such, you have to admit that they’re going to be a part of every little thing you do in your life — and that participation is only on the rise. People with computer chips inside their body sending their location information to some government agency isn’t just on the science fiction pages anymore. Do you really not care if an organization that makes all this machinery and its software is capable of abusing that power? Do you not care if a software manufacturer gains so much power that they can literally force you to buy their stuff?
For example, imagine a large corporation creating a chip that does this location mapping. Another corporation creates software for this chip. These billion-dollar organizations lobby the government to create a “safety” law that requires every citizen of the country to install this chip on their person, and non-compliance would result in their bank accounts being suspended or they being barred from ever using the Internet for fear that they would do something criminal, like steal a song or something anonymously. Please don’t tell me this is ridiculous, because anti-piracy laws actually have been proposed that would result in a person being barred from the Internet for illegally downloading movies. Imagine you downloading $50 worth of free stuff illegally, and it results in you never being able to use VoIP services anymore, sending email to someone even if your life depended on it, and never taking up a long-distance learning course online. Does it not matter whether a corporation has the power to impose this on you as long as your software “does its job?” That’s the virtual equivalent of an Arab state cutting a man’s hands off in the name of justice for the crime of stealing. If that results in curbing down most theft, would you be OK with the principle behind that law?
There’s a reason why the United States government forcibly broke down AT&T all those years ago. I wonder why they don’t see that same danger of abuse when touting PIPA and BIll C-11 (in Canada) as the next big step towards saving jobs or boosting our digital economy. I didn’t see any major software companies other than Google and open source giants opposing those bills despite understanding fully well how disastrous those laws are. That tells me that the current leaders of these corporations wouldn’t give a damn about what happens over the long run as long as they make enough money to last their lifetimes. These are the corporations that give capitalism a bad name. They’re not capitalists; they’re thugs who are willing to ride any gravy boat and use any means available to them to overthrow their competition. Why else would Steve Jobs be perfectly fine with borrowing Xerox’s idea but cry foul when Android’s unlock mechanism is made to be only visually similar to that of the iOS? Just because he filed the patent first, does that really make him the “innovator”? I have a lot of respect for the man’s creative vision, but his business tactics are hardly worth admiring. (And if you think that’s just the real nature of business, that is a sad proof of how such practices have corrupted the image of big business in the minds of so many people.)
The solution is obviously not the prevalent antitrust litigation in the US and other countries, which has been nothing short of a colossal disaster; but when the government has unlimited power and businesses have the money to wield it, I get worried about which company I support by buying their stuff today. And the software I buy factors in on this decision.
The other two reasons for me caring about free software are: proprietary software vendors lie to us all the time, and their business tactics involve gaining market share not by creating a top class product, but by creating an ecosystem that locks users into buying their stuff just to ensure that their previous purchase doesn’t go to waste. If you buy a Windows phone, you can’t use it with a computer even as a storage device unless you’re running some version of the Windows OS! It has Bluetooth, great; but hey, it won’t pair with Android phones. Now if you’re open about this discrimination, I’d still give it to you that you’re at least forthcoming. But how can you claim on one hand that your device follows a certain standard (such as Bluetooth), and on the other, don’t allow it to connect with another device following the exact same standard? That tells me that your intentions are anything but honorable.
I obviously don’t care about syncing music across all my devices, but it doesn’t serve any functional or esthetic purpose to deliberately lock down your mobile OS in such a way that no one can even use the physical storage on that device unless they do it on your terms. Again, that’s not smart business any more than it is to sell someone an antidote to cure a problem only to later disclose that it gives them another problem for which they need to buy another antidote from you. Perhaps it is my fault for taking that antidote and not reading the fine print. But my problem is with the companies that count on people ignoring that little detail or being ignorant about this issue altogether; and that’s what puts a big question mark on an organization’s integrity in my book.
I’m an entrepreneur at heart, and when I see companies violating something I consider extremely sacred about business ethics — honesty in dealing with customers, and never being underhanded — I take it as an affront against me and all the other honest businessmen over the world. That’s why I care.
I agree with your arguments, but have no choice but to remain a Windows slave. Without Windows, my clients’ software and my favorite games won’t run, so I’d have the choice between starving or getting bored to death.
Yes, and unfortunately, there are millions of other people in the same boat. It’s almost criminal how many people stick with Windows just because they need MS Office. And they need MS Office not necessarily for its merits or functions — instead they need it because everyone else uses it and they need consistency with document formats.
Now look at the intentionally malevolent policy of the company making that office suite: they advertise that they support the open document format. So technically, you don’t really need MS Office to create files that other MS Office users can see. All you need is a software capable of saving files in ODF (the open document format), and MS Office should be able to open those files perfectly. Guess what, it doesn’t! Any file you save using the latest version of LibreOffice or any other software, MS Office says it is corrupted and will fix it. In reality, MS Office hasn’t implemented the latest specifications of the open document format. So instead of saying it doesn’t support the newest standard, it says the file you’re trying to open is corrupt or bad. It apparently “fixes” it, THEN opens it, and then tells its users to save it in the MS Office native format for best experience or whatever.
The end result of this trick: people think other software just isn’t good enough and no matter what, MS Office is what really “works.”
[...] Complete Story [...]
Nice post regarding the philosophy of the open source. Open source software and Linux is also very close to my heart.
Not only financially its very convenient to have open-source technology rather socially also persons
learn the advantages of sharing knowledge with fellow friends. It would be essential to build free and independent mind set among persons. The usage of
Linux operating system is one such a great example of what a collective knowledge of community can achieve.
Thanks for your comment Amol. I do agree that open source software has advantages that go far beyond the simple math of cost-effectiveness. However, I also think that while open source is a great design methodology, there’s a lot of merit to Richard Stallman’s critique of open source that it doesn’t emphasize on the “freedom” aspect of software much, which could be a great hole they might want to fill soon. Otherwise, open source will end up creating software that harms our freedom better than its proprietary variant does.
Having grown up in a corporate UNIX environment,
I find your friends “whatever does my job more easily”
argument strangely compelling, although not in the way
they’d like. You see, Linux *DOES* do what I need to do
faster and more efficiently!
The fallacy I hear the most is the “appliance” argument.
That is; “If any other major appliance behaved the way
computers do, there would be a consumer revolt”.
Obviously, that illustrates that many consumers consider a computer to be an appliance, like a washing
machine. Well… sorry, it isn’t. It’s a COMPUTER.
Computers require some degree of control, just as ships
or aircraft require ‘piloting’ to direct them successfully.
In today’s software driven world, it has already been
demonstrated time and again that if YOU are not in
control, then someone else will be, (often remotely!).
Well, *I* prefer to be in control, and I am.
*MY* hand on the tiller, navigating to *MY* goals.
All others just constitute interference, that’s all.
LOL, that appliance analogy is quite apt for so many people. But it’s sad when those who eat and breathe computer applications and get that it’s not a washing machine don’t get the potential for abuse that some major software vendors have. It’s almost like they’ve accepted the cynical view that that’s how businesses need to operate in order to survive, which is obviously false.
First I want to congratulate on your post. I share many of the ideas you presented here.
Second I am a advocate of open source software, but I am getting tiered of explaining why you should think careful about what you need and what you desire. Almost all of the debates transform into which operating system is good for a specific task. People need to stop this approach and start thinking about themselves. If we are 7 billions people on this planet we should have 7 billions operating systems. We should start thinking that if we are different in so many aspects. Why should the OS and the soft I use be any different. I believe that we should all have tools to create the user experience we want. For me the computer stopped being a tool long time ago, it’s a user experience, a part of my life. And to have a rich experience I need to be able to customize and do things to work the way i want. This is why I can’t emphasize with only one OS or soft that does all. I hope people will awake up and realize that this is what freedom means.
Thank you very much for your comment, I really appreciate it
I couldn’t agree more! People really need to stop looking at computers in a short sighted, range-of-the-moment way. They’re a portal to another world, which has already become just as important part of our lives as the real world is.
I am a linux *Ubuntu* user and a Pc tech, Ms. Ditas’ comment opens a hold it the readers logic. I have a computer for my purpose, find. However/BUT, I need to communicate with others who also have computers to 7 Billion personal needs. The aurgument should be in response, all these 7 Billion users have a means of talking the same language and the ability to interprit other means of communication and are able to still be individuals with personal setup computers.
Linux is that *Tower of Bable*.
just my 2 pasos worth
I agree but…
Surely Apple would do the same? I don’t see why you pick on Microsoft. It’s probably a good thing there are alternative ways of doing things. For all that it gives us problems, we get a variety of tools, and neither MS or Apple get to run our lives for us completely.
Oh absolutely they would; and I take just as much issue with Apple — perhaps even more so with them than I do with Microsoft! Here are some of my thoughts on the legacy of Steve Jobs: http://kushalsharma.com/noesis/2011/10/21/on-steve-jobs-and-his-legacy/
You’re absolutely right on the other part too, that the more options we have, the harder it is for any one company to rule our lives. And that’s exactly what we need to preserve by figuring out how to break the vendor lockdown crap Microsoft and Apple are so notorious at implementing. Perhaps something like a web standard, but for hardware so that regardless of what operating system you use, all hardware provides a certain minimum level of functionality. Then it’s just a matter of how well you design the software for it that decides who wins in the marketplace.